W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > December 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-180 (TLebo): defaults to prov:steps="n" causes issue in PROV-O [prov-dm]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:44:16 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|575e92705f616dbeb6112af31b07c32anBJGiK08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4EF0BB60.80607@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Tim,

How do you map prov:steps to prov-o?  Your mapping could require this 
property
to be mandatory, and not rely on a default value.

Is this really a prov-dm issue?

Best regards,
Luc

On 12/02/2011 07:28 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-180 (TLebo): defaults to prov:steps="n" causes issue in PROV-O [prov-dm]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/180
>
> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
> On product: prov-dm
>
> Imposing a "default" value for prov:steps will cause issues in PROV-O, which embraces the open world.
>
> > From [1]:
>
> "It is optional to include the attribute prov:steps in an imprecise-n derivation record. It defaults to prov:steps="n"."
>
>
> An OWL axiom such as "imprecise-n derivation records must have values of prov:step that are integers greater than 1" can be done, and if an instance of Derivation is typed to "imprecise-n derivation record", then one knows that it has more than one step -- even when no prov:step has been asserted.
>
>
> If this OWL approach is taken, would we be violating the DM's "It defaults to prov:steps="n"."?
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
>
> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/ProvenanceModel.html#Derivation-Relation
>
>
>
>    

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2011 16:44:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:05 UTC